Some questions about the commercial drift fishery

I received an email earlier this week from a friend who watches these things probably more diligently than I do. He was concerned about a commercial drift fishery opener in the Central District on August 23.

The Fish and Game news release announcing the opener states that, by regulation, drift Areas 3 and 4 would remain open for this fishing period. The addition was allowing drifters to operate in Area 1 as well. If memory serves, Areas 3 and 4 are relatively small areas within one mile of the shoreline or over on the west side of the inlet while Area 1 is the entire inlet just south of the southern edge of Kaligin Island.

According to my friend, by regulation after August 15, the drift fleet is restricted to only fishing the west side of the inlet. The reported catch for this one 12-hour expanded opener amounted to over 70 percent being silver salmon, yet the opener was warranted to harvest sockeye salmon returning to the Kenai and Kasilof rivers. The announcement also mentions, almost in passing, that other salmon species in Upper Cook Inlet could be harvested as well.

Why did the department allow the drift fleet to fish out of the area they are normally restricted to by regulation? The department fishing period announcement states that the sockeye returns to the Kenai River were about 9 days late but, since the inriver sockeye salmon goal for the Kenai was met, the commercial opening was allowable.

The department justifies the commercial harvest of silvers in this opener by stating that the 2018 Offshore Test Fish (OTF) cumulative Coho index was the second highest on record.

Virtually every salmon management plan written for Cook Inlet has an escape clause. That clause states that the Commissioner of Fish and Game has the authority to operate outside the management plan if situations are warranted. I’m sure that’s what the department is hanging their collective hat on here to justify this expanded opener.

While the department’s actions are not illegal, they do cause one to wonder and reflect on exactly who the department seems to favor. Notice I said who and not what. The department’s first and primary responsibility is to protect and preserve the fisheries resources in Cook Inlet. There was no conservation reason to open Area 1 for this opener.

Would there have been some “missed harvest opportunity” for the drift fleet had Area 1 not been included in this opener. Undoubtedly! Would that have created a conservation concern for the resource – absolutely not! So why allow the expansion in area?

This was a very poor year for commercial harvest of salmon in Cook Inlet. Since the management plan governing the commercial gill net drift fleet centers solely and entirely on the strength of the Kenai sockeye return strengths, and this year’s returns were poor, the fleet suffered both in harvest numbers and area and time allowed to fish. I suspect the department felt that this expansion was acceptable from an economic perspective.

There’s also the fact that Governor Walker made some fairly extensive promises to the commercial drift fleet back when he was originally running for his current job. One promise was to get a BOF regulatory meeting held in the Kenai/Soldotna area. That promise was literally forced down the BOF’s collective throat this past year. Another promise was to get a drifter either as the fish and game commissioner or at least appointed to the BOF.

Roland Maw was the man selected and when he was turned down for commissioner by the joint boards and then resigned from his appointed BOF seat because of criminal charges both in Montana and Alaska, that promise fell off the table.

Was this year’s fishing period extension outside of regulation perhaps another helpful action the governor might have suggested be done considering the drifters’ economic hardships? After all, it is an election year and Gov. Walker needs all the votes he can get to stay in office. My guess is he’ll finish third in the governor’s race regardless of favors granted.

Another concern about the department’s actions in this opener is that the area expansion is clearly an allocative action. This is specifically not something the department can do. Allocation of the resource is a BOF prerogative and is reflected in time and area allowed for fishing.

The department did well managing the fishery earlier in the season by following the management plan and protecting the resource. Yet they finish the year, again, with another head scratcher.